Case at a glance: A company director deposited money in the Supreme Court as a condition of anticipatory bail, but part of it came from the company's own bank account. After the company was admitted into insolvency, the Court directed that Rs 5.05 crore, with the interest earned on it, be released to the Interim Resolution Professional, holding that the complainant cannot claim the corporate debtor's assets during the moratorium.
The petitioner, a director of M/s Vimla Fuels and Metals Limited along with her husband, had sought anticipatory bail in a cheating FIR alleging that Rs 36 crore payable for an export to an entity in Sharjah had been defrauded, with the transactions routed through the company. On 22 July 2025 the Supreme Court barred coercive steps, subject to her cooperating with the investigation and depositing Rs 4 crore and Rs 3.5 crore in two tranches. Anticipatory bail was granted on 3 September 2025.
On 20 April 2026, on the complainant's application, the Court allowed the complainant to withdraw the deposit on furnishing a bank guarantee for an equal amount with interest; the guarantee had not yet been furnished. Meanwhile the NCLT admitted the company into CIRP, appointed the applicant as IRP and declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The IRP pointed out that Rs 5.05 crore of the deposit had been transferred from the company's bank account on 4 August 2025 and 29 August 2025, and sought its release.
The Key Question Before the Court
When money deposited to secure anticipatory bail comes from a company that later enters insolvency, does it go to the complainant or to the resolution professional?
Moratorium, Corporate Assets and the Purpose of a Bail Deposit
The Court noted that it was not disputed that the amounts came from the corporate debtor's account to satisfy the condition imposed on a director for anticipatory bail. In view of the moratorium, it held that the complainant cannot claim disbursal of the entire amount, since Rs 5.05 crore with accrued interest is an asset of the corporate debtor.
The Court also explained the nature of the deposit: it was directed on the accused's undertaking, to obtain anticipatory bail and to show bona fides. In its words, “the criminal proceedings cannot be said to be initiated to obtain recovery of the amounts alleged to have been defrauded by the accused.” The complainant remains entitled to the balance with interest, on furnishing a bank guarantee.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Registry was directed to disburse Rs 5.05 crore to the IRP on a proper application, along with the interest accrued on it in the fixed deposit.
- The complainant is entitled to the balance amounts with interest, on furnishing a bank guarantee.
- The anticipatory bail was not disturbed.
- If the petitioner fails to cooperate, the Investigating Officer may approach the jurisdictional court for arrest or custodial interrogation.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows how an IBC moratorium can reach money lying in a court's registry when it is traced to the corporate debtor.
- It reminds parties that a bail deposit is not a recovery mechanism for the complainant.
- It keeps the bail protection intact while protecting the insolvency estate.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Resolution Professionals
- Trace deposits made by directors in criminal proceedings to see whether company funds were used.
- Apply to the court holding the deposit, with proof of the transfers from the company's account.
For Complainants and Accused
- Do not treat bail deposits as security for recovery of the alleged loss.
- Expect the moratorium to override a withdrawal order where the money is the corporate debtor's.
Key Takeaways
- The deposit traced to the company went to the IRP.
- Interest earned on it follows the principal.
- The complainant gets the balance only on a bank guarantee.
- Bail stands, subject to cooperation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Because Rs 5.05 crore came from the corporate debtor's account and, during the moratorium, it is the corporate debtor's asset.
No. The Court left it undisturbed, but allowed the IO to seek arrest if the petitioner does not cooperate.
The Court said the criminal case cannot be treated as a proceeding to recover the allegedly defrauded amount; the deposit was to show bona fides.
Conclusion
This short order sits at the meeting point of criminal procedure and insolvency law, and gives priority to the corporate debtor's estate where company money was used to satisfy a director's bail condition.
Practical takeaway: If a director pays a bail deposit out of company funds and the company later enters CIRP, the IRP can claim that portion back from the court.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →